Governmental steering and innovations in university curricula

Ineke Jenniskens

doi:10.1016/S0195-6310(00)80023-X

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Product Information:

Resources:

Comparative Social Research

ISSN: 0195-6310
Series editor(s): Dr Fredrik Engelstad

Subject Area: Sociology and Public Policy

Content: Series Volumes | Current Volume RSS

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Document request:
Governmental steering and innovations in university curricula

Document Information:
Title:	Governmental steering and innovations in university curricula
Author(s):	Ineke Jenniskens
Volume:	19 Editor(s): Ragnvald Kalleberg, Fredrik Engelstad, Grete Brochmann, Arnlaug Leira and Lars Mjøset ISBN: 978-0-76230-679-4 eISBN: 978-1-84950-059-3
Citation:	Ineke Jenniskens (2000), Governmental steering and innovations in university curricula, in Ragnvald Kalleberg, Fredrik Engelstad, Grete Brochmann, Arnlaug Leira and Lars Mjøset (ed.) Comparative Perspectives on Universities (Comparative Social Research, Volume 19), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.139-164
DOI:	10.1016/S0195-6310(00)80023-X (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Article type:	Full length article
Abstract:	This chapter (based on the results of a large research project that was finished in 1997) focuses on the relation between governmental steering activities and the occurrence of innovations in university curricula. Curricula are one means through which universities disseminate their knowledge and their expertise to others in society. Other actors in the higher education system, like professional organizations, employers, and (national) governments, have a great interest in this dissemination function of university curricula. Three propositions specify the expected relations between different types of governmental steering and the curriculum innovativeness of a university system. A comparative research design is used to test these expectations, including the Netherlands, France, Pennsylvania (USA) and England, and two periods of time (the late 1970s and the late 1980s). Two specific curriculum innovations are selected: the introduction of a new undergraduate degree program and the introduction of a new specialization (or major) within an existing undergraduate program. Besides a quantitative count of the number of innovations that occurred, a limited number of innovations is studied in more detail through interviews with key actors. The analysis of the empirical findings leads to interesting conclusions. I present some alternative explanations that might explain the unexpected findings.